I'm taking a bit of liberty here. I am using "sea level rise skeptic" as a stand-in for another forum member, because this isn't just about that other forum member. The identity of that other forum member could be discovered by scrolling through another of the current or very recent "rinselberg" topics, but I think there are some (if not many) who would be reluctant to do that, partly because it is another "rinselberg" topic, and partly because of how that other topic has been titularized. This is my bid to find a (slightly) larger readership. Larger than zero. So now, without further ado, here is the crux of the matter. All that follows.
Are you a "sea level rise skeptic"?
If you think that there's a simple experiment, like this meme, that anyone could set up in their kitchen, using only a glass of water and an ice cube (and maybe some food dye and a paper towel), to "diss" the rising sea level projections from climate scientists—then this is for you.
quote
Originally posted by "sea level rise skeptic": Try this. Put an ice cube in a glass. Put it on a paper towel. Fill it up with water. Add some dye to it. Come back when the ice has melted and see if it has over flowed the glass. Tell us how that worked for you.
This is the same misconception that I talked about a number of weeks ago, when I responded to a very similar meme that someone else had posted.
What that would demonstrate, with the ice cube in a glass and filling the glass up with water (etc.) is that the total amount of sea water on the planet does not change because of sea ice—the ice that forms when it's so cold that the surface of the ocean freezes and covers offshore areas in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. These are the offshore ice packs and ice shelves. This is what ice-breaking ships have to deal with. When sea ice forms, it doesn't cause a negative contribution to sea levels. When sea ice melts it doesn't cause a positive contribution to sea levels. It doesn't affect sea levels.
Climate scientists are focused not on sea ice, but on land ice. That's the ice that covers areas of land. The glaciers in mountain regions all around the world, and the ice packs that have formed on land—conspicuously, the great ice packs that cover the continent of Antarctica and the large island of Greenland in the Arctic. These glaciers and land ice are seen by observations to be melting away at what many climate scientists say is an alarming pace. And when land ice melts and the melt water finds its way into the oceans, which is mostly what happens, that becomes a rise in sea levels all around the world.
I just said "alarming pace". It's an unnaturally rapid transition that most climate scientists believe is being mostly caused by us (humans) through everything we do that results in a net increase of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—conspicuously, carbon dioxide and methane—but there are some other greenhouse gases of concern, caused by people.
To model the melting of land ice, you should fill a glass with water all the way to its brim to represent sea water and then pour more water on top of that, to represent melt water from glaciers and ice packs on land. Or you could use an ice cube to represent land ice that is still frozen but goes into the sea as a glacier melts from below and flows downhill to the coastline—the "calving" of a new iceberg. Put an ice cube into the glass that's already filled to the brim with "seawater".
Either way, some of the water in the glass is going to be displaced and overtop the brim of the glass and flow downwards along the outer surface of the glass and collect on the surface of the table that supports the glass.
That's what happens when glaciers and land ice are thawed by warming temperatures and become melt water, or float out to sea, still frozen, as brand new icebergs—a rise in sea levels.
There's a second component to rising sea levels in a warming world, and that's the thermal expansion of seawater as its temperature goes up, but I've already said enough to explain that this "ice cube in a glass of water" experiment, as originally set up here by "sea level rise skeptic", does not contradict anything that climate scientists are saying when they talk about rising sea levels.
Yo "sea level rise skeptic"... Say My Name!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2022).]
"I'm taking a bit of liberty here. I am using "sea level rise skeptic" as a stand-in for another forum member, because this isn't just about that other forum member. The identity of that other forum member could be discovered by scrolling through another of the current or very recent "rinselberg" topics, but I think there are some (if not many) who would be reluctant to do that, partly because it is another "rinselberg" topic, and partly because of how that other topic has been titularized. This is my bid to find a (slightly) larger readership."
[This message has been edited by Cheeper2keeper (edited 11-17-2022).]
Why does this Cheeper2keeper keep coming to this Politics & Religion section of the forum? He seems to have nothing on his mind when he comes here, except for his stupid fixation on me. It's not symmetrical. I have zero interest in him, and zero interest in anything he has to say about me. I scrolled down just far enough to read the first line of the message he posted (immediately before this message) and I stopped right there. I don't know what came after that. I don't want to know. I expect to keep it that way.
Did he say anything about the original topic of this thread? Did he say anything about the melting of land ice or sea ice and how that contributes (or does not contribute) to the predictions of higher sea levels around the world from the latest climate science research? Did he say anything about how to make sense of the Glass of Water and an Ice Cube genre of science experiments, from a climate science perspective?
If he talked about any of that, and if he stopped talking like some self-appointed, phoney-baloney, psychiatrist wannabe, looking for someone to practice on... then I might read him.
In just 67 seconds, this video explains the Glass of Water and Ice Cube experiment. It reiterates what I said. Actually, I reiterated what the video says. Or maybe I only just iterated...
This video is what it means when it's explained by someone who actually understands the science of it, in conspicuous contrast to the crowd that traffics in ill-conceived memes like this one (again):
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
It's one thing for people to just remain skeptical about the projections and the urgencies of global "de-carbonizing" that many climate scientists are aligned with.
It's another thing altogether when people traffic in explanations and "experiments" like this meme to justify their skepticism, but the explanations that they are coming up with "do not compute." And then this same crowd cackles on social media about how much smarter they are than the "anti-science leftists."
I've really "got it in" for this meme! I'm calling it a "meme". That's close enough, isn't it?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2022).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Mr Projected Sea Level Rise Skeptic, that glass of water and ice cube meme is BULL***
I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Everyone learns in school that glacial ice is extremely dense, with the vast majority of the air bubbles (minus the actual composition of the molecular compound H2O) are squeezed out because of the immense pressure of the ice. There's obviously still some air bubbles in there, but when it melts, it's not like melting ice cubes in a glass. Most people know this, and it's not a serious discussion point. The meme is a joke.
On the issue of sea levels rising... there's a LOT of nonsense out there. For one, there seems to be a total mis-calculation about how much, or how little the sea is rising everywhere. States from the North East (into Canada) all the way to South Florida, have measured different levels of "sea level rise." While based on the Earth's geography, and the fact that it's a spinning ball and... how a spinning ball sends everything to the outer extremities of the rotation, "rise" should be greater in places like Miami than everywhere else (or more specifically, at the equator). But that's not the case, some states like NY claim there is more sea level rise than there is in Miami, while other places state that they've seen an decrease in sea level. Then there's the problem of "HOW" sea level is calculated. There are several ways, but the one most commonly cited is NASA's use of satellites to measure (via radio waves) the bounce of signal off the ocean every 10 to 15 days (depending on measurement criteria). The problem with this is that it largely doesn't account for changing weather patterns... e.g., going in and out of El Nino or La Nina, as well as a more active versus less active hurricane season, in which case you might have storm surge during the point in time at which it's measured, which then totally disrupts the average if it measures at the same time a hurricane is hitting the east coast of Florida. These satellites are also in a constant state of gravitational decay over time, nor is the a-synchronous orbit. The math isn't perfect, and this only adds to what becomes a slightly exponential inaccuracy.
The best method (IMHO) is using a stake which is laser-leveled and geo-coordinated to determine elevation to sea level, and measure over the years the rise and / or fall of the sea level. There's one of these in Key West, and I can't remember (just tried to search for it and couldn't find anything). When I worked down there for several weeks at the Naval Air Station, they were telling me about it. There are some years that it literally shows a decrease in sea level rise. That said, they do indicate some sea level rise, but it's so insignificant as to basically discount nearly every drama news article out there that says everything will be underwater.
Furthermore, a lot of the drama comes from people saying the sea level is rising, when in effect, the elevation of the ground is actually decreasing. For example, because of erosion at the beach, and the slow degradation of the water table underneath many of these areas, the land has actually dropped a foot or two in some places, which becomes almost unnoticeable, even on pavement... with concrete structures sometimes sinking further. Note... this kind of stuff also happens in places like Texas, where in some cases, structures will actually rise up slightly, while everything else around it slides down due to the freezing and thawing of the soil during the winter and summer months.
There's so much corruption with this too. But there are some benefits as well. The city of Miami knows that they screwed up back in the day when the city was run by Democrats in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Many of the building permits were allowed to be built in areas that were already prone to flooding and should never have been built on. Moving forward, the city can get grants and even "free" money from the Federal government to do everything from hiring dozens of geotechnical engineers, a bunch of administrators, and funding for public works projects in the name of rising ocean levels. This has also led to stricter building standards, requiring structures to be built on higher elevation (Miami's 2040 plan), as well as increased code requirements for building on rubble / fill. You now have to wait years for land to settle before you are allowed to build on it. Along with the Republican's efforts to protect the Everglades and prevent encroachment, and the new building standards, there's no more room to build in urban areas of Fort Lauderdale and Miami. So two things happen, they have to expand south to Homestead, or north to Pompano Beach, or they start redeveloping the ghettos... places like Liberty City, Hialeah, etc...
So, there's good and bad... but bottom line... 80% of the rising ocean stuff is complete bull **** . The other 20% is largely out of our control.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Everyone learns in school that glacial ice is extremely dense, with the vast majority of the air bubbles (minus the actual composition of the molecular compound H2O) are squeezed out because of the immense pressure of the ice. There's obviously still some air bubbles in there, but when it melts, it's not like melting ice cubes in a glass. Most people know this, and it's not a serious discussion point. The meme is a joke.
That was an unexpected and interesting response. I haven't had time yet to read the remainder of it, but I do want to respond to this much of it.
I don't think that meme that I've singled out for so much (honestly) of my attention was intended as a joke. I think that it got started and then repeated by people who do not understand the distinction that climate scientists are making between land ice and sea ice, in terms of how the melting of the earth's cryosphere (a fancy way of saying "ice") will change sea levels around the world.
I've already said that, at (very) considerable length. And then I posted a short YouTube video about it.
I don't think that any consideration of the density of the ice cube or how much air is trapped inside the ice cube is part of the thinking that created this meme.
Other readers (should there be any) would probably do well to just skip past my essay-like explanation of it and just go with that 67 seconds of YouTube video that I posted.
"It's the economy land ice, Stupid!"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2022).]
I give you, Glacier Girl (wiki) Glacier Girl: The Backstory (Smithsonian) A P-38 Lightning (my fav!) crash lands (with the rest of the squadron), and gets recovered 50years or so later. In 264 feet of solid ice these planes were buried by the harsh mistress known as Mother Nature. I thought mankind halted all ice shelf and glacier reproduction through forced man-made climate abortion?
Now, how's that dem unicorn fart hiding out in Bermuda doing, one of the guys keeping the libtards alive through phoney money laundering schemes, Inselberg? Frauds. Libtards can't survive without being honest. Just like the topic of this thread. Hoax.
Go back to your Googling to try and prove massive man made climate change. Start@0:28
This is my bid to find a (slightly) larger readership. Larger than zero. So now, without further ado, here is the crux of the matter. All that follows.
So, one might draw the conclusion from the above posting that if enough people ignored your postings you'd go find another venue to pollute? Just curious.
Originally posted by blackrams: So, one might draw the conclusion from the above posting that if enough people ignored your postings you'd go find another venue to pollute? Just curious.
Did either "blackrams" or "olejoedad" take notice of what 82-T/A [At Work] or Todd (if memory serves me) entered into the conversation? It's the 4th Reply or 5th Post, counting the "original". I'm still looking forward to reading that. I only got as far as the end of the very first part of it, where he offered the opinion that the meme that I posted at the very beginning of this thread was (or is) a "joke", and not to be taken at face value. I responded to that by saying that I think otherwise.
Once upon a time, the engagement level or responsiveness in this Totally O/T and now "Politics & Religion" section of Pennock's was much higher. I would call that an era of "vibrancy", because the discussions were many and vibrant, and many common and also some uncommon "vibes" were expressed. A bygone era. I'm still nostalgic for it.
What would make this thread even more of a "winner" for me?
What if either of the two forum members who have recently "trafficked" in this meme showed up here with something to say about it?
On each occasion, I offered this same explanation of how climate scientists differentiate between land ice and sea ice, and how that distinction conditions their projections about sea levels rising in a warming planetary climate. I pointed out how this unfortunate meme with the glass of water and an ice cube glosses over that point, and so, is erroneous in that regard. I "cannibalized" some of what I said before to use in this New Topic format.
The one of them (the two forum members) I regard as a forum "friend". Also the other forum member, although I wish he would exercise more discrimination in selecting the memes that are his habit to post on this forum. "Meme quality" is as important as "candidate quality", to echo a recent remark from Mitch McConnell. (Who remembers that?)
It would be spectacular if either of those two forum members showed up here—but I'm not holding my breath. Nor am I holding it against them, that they so far have not exercised that option.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-19-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: No, I was commenting on Ron's message, just hoping you would go pollute some other webspace with your incessant blathering.
I wonder if Ron (blackrams) and yourself (olejoedad) are a bit "chippy" about the midterms? As in "chip on your shoulder."
It's not as if either of you haven't dissed my "blathering" before, but this seems a little "extra".
It certainly wasn't a Blue Wave, but I'm surprised that the Democrats were able to retain at least their half share of the Senate (50 seats) and even more surprised at some of the successes for the Democrats at the state level. Michigan. Pennsylvania. Maryland. Minnesota, I think.
On a forum (this "Politics & Religion" section) where new remarks of any kind are not that common, it seems ironic that anyone would not openly welcome new remarks, even if they do not agree with the ideas or the sentiments that are being expressed.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-19-2022).]
Did either "blackrams" or "olejoedad" take notice of what 82-T/A [At Work] or Todd (if memory serves me) entered into the conversation? It's the 4th Reply or 5th Post, counting the "original". I'm still looking forward to reading that. I only got as far as the end of the very first part of it, where he offered the opinion that the meme that I posted at the very beginning of this thread was (or is) a "joke", and not to be taken at face value. I responded to that by saying that I think otherwise.
Once upon a time, the engagement level or responsiveness in this Totally O/T and now "Politics & Religion" section of Pennock's was much higher. I would call that an era of "vibrancy", because the discussions were many and vibrant, and many common and also some uncommon "vibes" were expressed. A bygone era. I'm still nostalgic for it.
What would make this thread even more of a "winner" for me?
What if either of the two forum members who have recently "trafficked" in this meme showed up here with something to say about it?
On each occasion, I offered this same explanation of how climate scientists differentiate between land ice and sea ice, and how that distinction conditions their projections about sea levels rising in a warming planetary climate. I pointed out how this unfortunate meme with the glass of water and an ice cube glosses over that point, and so, is erroneous in that regard. I "cannibalized" some of what I said before to use in this New Topic format.
The one of them (the two forum members) I regard as a forum "friend". Also the other forum member, although I wish he would exercise more discrimination in selecting the memes that are his habit to post on this forum. "Meme quality" is as important as "candidate quality", to echo a recent remark from Mitch McConnell. (Who remembers that?)
It would be spectacular if either of those two forum members showed up here—but I'm not holding my breath. Nor am I holding it against them, that they so far have not exercised that option.
This topic came up in the other threads as a sidebar... as something that was only incidental or tangential to most of what was being said. Neither one of these threads were set up with "Sea Level" or "Melting Ice" in the front page list of threads or topics.
If you go back to the 4th Reply or 5th Post (counting the original) in this thread, there is a substantive and well thought out response on this topic from another forum member.
Is this really a "thread about another thread"..? I think the 4th Reply (or 5th Post) kind of shoots down that idea.
Did either "blackrams" or "olejoedad" take notice of what 82-T/A [At Work] or Todd (if memory serves me) entered into the conversation? It's the 4th Reply or 5th Post, counting the "original". I'm still looking forward to reading that. I only got as far as the end of the very first part of it, where he offered the opinion that the meme that I posted at the very beginning of this thread was (or is) a "joke", and not to be taken at face value. I responded to that by saying that I think otherwise.
To be fair, I didn't watch any of your videos about land ice and sea ice. The only differentiator between a glacier, and an iceberg, is that it breaks off and falls in the water. But I learned a long time ago when I was a kid in science class, that the water in the glacier is significantly more dense than what you would make in your ice machine. The reason is varied, but it includes the immense pressure the ice is under from all the weight of the continuing frozen water above it, and the rate at which the water is frozen in the first place.
But yes... I wouldn't put too much stock into that meme, I'm not sure who created it, but it's not right.
The seawater that's displaced when meltwater or glacial ice flows from land into the seas is a measure of how much water has been added to the oceans and how much of a contribution it makes to higher sea levels all around the world. It's the mass (essentially, the weight) of the meltwater or glacial ice that is significant, not the volume. For for an equal mass of water or ice, the effect on sea level is the same, whether it is densely packed glacial ice with hardly any air bubbles, or ice that is less dense (because of air bubbles) and comprises a comparatively larger volume. Like an ice cube from a household freezer or the freezer section of a Thermador home refrigerator.
I say "Thermador", because according to one of our keener political enthusiasts, these midterm elections should be described as "Thermador 2022".
Of course, he keeps misspelling it as "Thermidor" for some odd reason.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-19-2022).]
I wonder if Ron (blackrams) and yourself (olejoedad) are a bit "chippy" about the midterms? As in "chip on your shoulder."
It's not as if either of you haven't dissed my "blathering" before, but this seems a little "extra".
It certainly wasn't a Blue Wave, but I'm surprised that the Democrats were able to retain at least their half share of the Senate (50 seats) and even more surprised at some of the successes for the Democrats at the state level. Michigan. Pennsylvania. Maryland. Minnesota, I think.
On a forum (this "Politics & Religion" section) where new remarks of any kind are not that common, it seems ironic that anyone would not openly welcome new remarks, even if they do not agree with the ideas or the sentiments that are being expressed.
First, let me say this: Only my friends call me Ron. Secondly, my comments have absolutley nothing to do with the mid-terms or anything else other than, your BS postings. I don't believe in lying. I rarely read your posts and when I do, I almost always come away wondering what the hell you are thinking.
Not intended as an insult, we simply live in different worlds (I think).
Originally posted by blackrams: First, let me say this: Only my friends call me Ron. Secondly ["Second" is preferable, having already started with "First"] my comments have absolutley [sic] nothing to do with the mid-terms or anything else other than [misplaced comma] your BS postings.
I don't believe in lying. [Ergo] I rarely read your posts and when I do, I almost always come away wondering what the hell you are thinking. . . .
Something prompted "blackrams" to enter this thread.
But he doesn't have to go away wondering what I was thinking, because, having already explained it, it's become easier for me to explain in even fewer words. And who doesn't like fewer words? Mr. "blackrams", especially.
The reason that the "Water and Ice" meme fails is that it starts with the ice cube already floating in the glass of water. The ice cube displaces the volume of water that is equal to its mass and that is part of the water level in the glass. When the ice cube melts, it just becomes part of the water, and since the phase transition of the ice cube from solid ice to liquid water does not change its mass, the water level in the glass does not change.
This has been seized upon by certain misinformed people (or miscreants) to traffic this meme on the Internet and claim that this simple experiment disproves that a warming planet implies higher sea levels.
But the meme is not science, because it starts with the ice cube already floating in the glass of water, and so, it only represents what climate scientists call "sea ice".
What about land ice? The experiment would have to start, not with the ice cube already floating in the glass of water, but with the ice cube still in the freezer, or in the hand of the experimenter, before she drops it into the glass. That would cause the water level in the glass to rise, proportionate to the mass of the ice cube.
That's only the phase transition. There's also the thermal expansion of seawater...
I guess this is "blackrams" lucky day.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-19-2022).]
I agree, the ice cube test is bull but that's the new society we have. No education and no desire to research anything on their own so if it's posted on the internet it HAS to be true, right?
When this melts, levels will rise.
I was also reading that the tallest glacier is over 24,000 feet high so I would imagine if that melts, there would be an increase in sea levels.
[This message has been edited by IMSA GT (edited 11-20-2022).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I rarely read your posts and when I do, I almost always come away wondering what the hell you are thinking.
I rarely reply to them. At first, I thought I was educating. What the hell was I thinking ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The reason that the "Water and Ice" meme fails is that it starts with the ice cube already floating in the glass of water.
Ah, now you are making less sense. You believe the glaciers were there before the water ? They were not. They happened because of the water. Duh ! For those glaciers to form, it came from the water. Now, it is going back. Big deal. What's your gripe, ?
Do you know what the specific gravity weight of fresh water per gallon is ? I thought not. I would not think that you would know what the specific gravity of salt water is. Do not google.
quote
Originally posted by IMSA GT: I agree, the ice cube test is bull but that's the new society we have. No education and no desire to research anything on their own so if it's posted on the internet it HAS to be true, right?
When this melts, levels will rise.
I was also reading that the tallest glacier is over 24,000 feet high so I would imagine if that melts, there would be an increase in sea levels.
I never argued that there was no effect. Are you arguing that when an ice cube in a glass, when topped of to the top with water, melts ... that it will not over flow the glass ? How could that be ? I know why it doesn't. Do you ?
Have you tried the test ? Perhaps it has to do with condensation. I know my beer cans condensate and leave water rings on my fine furniture. No mater full it is.
Follow the science. Think about the logic of the science "theory". Hypothesis.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-20-2022).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Ah, now you are making less sense. You believe the glaciers were there before the water ? They were not. They happened because of the water. Duh ! For those glaciers to form, it came from the water. Now, it is going back. Big deal. What's your gripe, ?
It is perhaps inevitable that at some future time, all the ice on earth will be gone and all of the water that was in it will have become seawater, translating into higher sea levels all around the world.
Climate mitigation is an idea that emanates from climate science research, that this "water world" doesn't have to be any time real soon. Many climate scientists believe that reducing the amount of greenhouse gases—a list of gaseous chemical compounds headed up by carbon dioxide as the "big kahuna"—will be enough to preserve the current climate regime roughly as it is today for at least some hundreds of more years, instead of a climate that's been radically transformed in just a few more decades.
quote
There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any time in at least 4 million years... Humans pumped 36 billion tons of the planet-warming gas into the atmosphere in 2021, more than in any previous year. It comes from burning oil, gas and coal.
Horse Apples ! Coal fired planet. Wilfrid Laurier is Prime Minister of Canada Theodore Roosevelt is President. Penicillin is twenty one years in the future, War in France seven, South Africa five in the past.
The seawater that's displaced when meltwater or glacial ice flows from land into the seas is a measure of how much water has been added to the oceans and how much of a contribution it makes to higher sea levels all around the world. It's the mass (essentially, the weight) of the meltwater or glacial ice that is significant, not the volume.
For for an equal mass of water or ice, the effect on sea level is the same, whether it is densely packed glacial ice with hardly any air bubbles, or ice that is less dense (because of air bubbles) and comprises a comparatively larger volume.
Just so we're clear, because I'm not really sure if you understand what I'm saying. When ice has less air in it (e.g. glacial ice), it will have MORE weight / mass than ice of the same overall volume. Just wanted to make sure we were in agreement here. Because as I said, as a result of the extreme pressure... iceberg ice from a glacier is extremely dense... essentially like glass, and therefore it has more mass to it.
Take another look. This belongs alongside Piltdown Man in the pantheon of "big time" frauds and hoaxes in the history of science. The miscreants behind the origination and online trafficking of this meme are about as relevant to the science of Sea Levels as ice berg lettuce.
"This 1915 painting by John Cooke depicts scientists comparing Piltdown Man's remains to other species. Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward stand next to each other toward the upper right." Credit: John Cooke Wikimedia Commons.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-21-2022).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: "It's the LAND ICE, stupid!"
Yes. We already knew that the LAND ICE was going to kill the penquins and the Polar Bears. There will be no more Christmas. Santa's workshop is flooded.
It is so obvious. You did not try the ice cube in the glass test of your sanity. I will double down.
Put a grain of salt in the glass of water. Just enough as fentinal which would kill you. Freeze it. Let global warming melt it.
Did the glass overflow, ?
Look, I thought I was retired. Life is popping like popcorn. I have too much to do besides arguing with tree huggers .
What I do know, is, lies repeated will not become fact.
rinselberg, I don't want you to think I don't love you. I am eyeball deep in things I must solve. I will never give up on intervening and trying to extract you from the Green Cult.
I am going to post this reply, even though it is not finished, to 'mark my territory.
Happy Holidays.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... because of how that other topic has been titularized.
Every word of the above sentence has a meaning, except the last one be it a noun, adjective, or a verb. What's up with your thread topic title ? [/QUOTE]
Every word of the above sentence has a meaning, except the last one be it a noun, adjective, or a verb. What's up with your thread topic title ?
I did not suggest that meme had any scientific meaning. You suggest that I believe it does.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: What that would demonstrate, with the ice cube in a glass and filling the glass up with water (etc.) is that the total amount of sea water on the planet does not change because of sea ice—the ice that forms when it's so cold that the surface of the ocean freezes and covers offshore areas in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. These are the offshore ice packs and ice shelves. This is what ice-breaking ships have to deal with. When sea ice forms, it doesn't cause a negative contribution to sea levels. When sea ice melts it doesn't cause a positive contribution to sea levels. It doesn't affect sea levels.
That defies logic and physics, ! Are you calling 97% of the climate gods liars ? Your Uncle Al Gore said the icecaps at the North and South poles are melting, that Polar Bears and penguins will die. When sea ice forms, you are suggesting that it comes from mountain icecaps and other land ice ? Where does it get it's salt content ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Climate scientists are focused not on sea ice, but on land ice. That's the ice that covers areas of land. The glaciers in mountain regions all around the world, and the ice packs that have formed on land—conspicuously, the great ice packs that cover the continent of Antarctica and the large island of Greenland in the Arctic. These glaciers and land ice are seen by observations to be melting away at what many climate scientists say is an alarming pace. And when land ice melts and the melt water finds its way into the oceans, which is mostly what happens, that becomes a rise in sea levels all around the world.
I just said "alarming pace". It's an unnaturally rapid transition that most climate scientists believe is being mostly caused by us (humans) through everything we do that results in a net increase of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—conspicuously, carbon dioxide and methane—but there are some other greenhouse gases of concern, caused by people.
To model the melting of land ice, you should fill a glass with water all the way to its brim to represent sea water and then pour more water on top of that, to represent melt water from glaciers and ice packs on land. Or you could use an ice cube to represent land ice that is still frozen but goes into the sea as a glacier melts from below and flows downhill to the coastline—the "calving" of a new iceberg. Put an ice cube into the glass that's already filled to the brim with "seawater".
Either way, some of the water in the glass is going to be displaced and overtop the brim of the glass and flow downwards along the outer surface of the glass and collect on the surface of the table that supports the glass.
That's what happens when glaciers and land ice are thawed by warming temperatures and become melt water, or float out to sea, still frozen, as brand new icebergs—a rise in sea levels.
There's a second component to rising sea levels in a warming world, and that's the thermal expansion of seawater as its temperature goes up, but I've already said enough to explain that this "ice cube in a glass of water" experiment, as originally set up here by "sea level rise skeptic", does not contradict anything that climate scientists are saying when they talk about rising sea levels. Click to show
I'll be back. Promise, !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-01-2022).]
Much can be said about this cartoon or meme that just appeared (from Hudini).
But this meme is different. It's pure baloney. It comes from a place where there are people who are constantly going on about "the Left" and about how "the Left" is—among other things—ignorant of science, or anti-science. And what is it? It's those same people revealing their own embarrassing ignorance of science. It would be an embarrassment for them, if they ever realized the science fallacy of this "Ice cube" meme and if they were capable of the self-awareness that is a prerequisite for experiencing the emotion of embarrassment.
If people simply proclaim that they do not believe what many climate scientists are saying about rising sea levels, that's hard to argue with—but they reveal themselves as gullible people when they traffic in this ice cube meme or its likes.
Here's what this ice cube meme makes me: Hangry!Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-02-2022).]
Hudini, my thoughts exactly. I was going to speak on them.
I don't know why rinselberg won't admit that he does not want to save the planet. He calls CO2 a pollutant. Imagine, the millions of old depleted batteries at the dump. I guess I should have said billions, world wide.
I don't know why rinselberg is advocating deplorable child labor to make those batteries. I guess rinselberg has not thought about how those children have to wash the mined cobalt in rivers, polluting them. Handling the cobalt with their bare hands. Perhaps rinselberg does not know that one can be poisoned merely by handling lethal material. By absorption through the skin.
I don't know why rinselberg wants to ask China for batteries and solar panels, so we can survive.
I also do not know why rinselberg thinks that wind and solar will provide for all our energy needs, plus desires.
There is crazy, and bat zhit crazy.
Who wants to be preached to by a bat zhit crazy preacher ?
?
!
